Comparison of Perceived Achievement of Complex Thinking Competency Among American, European, and Asian University Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for writing this stimulating paper. I have no serious issues with the text, just some minor suggestions that could make the paper stronger.

In my feedback, I will focus solely on the theoretical framework, as this is my own area of strength as a philosopher of education. Namely, I have some concerns about how critical thinking (and the closely related epistemological aims of education, such as reflective thinking, information literacy, scientific thinking, analytical thinking, logical thinking etc.) are introduced in the text. This seems to me as one-dimensional and focused on only thinking skills (analyzing claims, forming beliefs, drawing logical conclusions from a set of premises etc.). However, philosophers of education who have written on this topic ever since John Dewey have stressed that critical thinking cannot be a neutral skill to be applied in any way as the individual wishes (for example, as a tool to create compelling political propaganda). Instead, our theoretical account of critical thinking must also include several virtues of thinking, such as the pursuit of truth and intellectual humility. As educators, our aim is to instill these virtues in our students. Many theorists have even suggested that these virtues of thinking are even more important in our account of critical thinking than the epistemological and logical skills.

This also affects how we see the role of higher education. It is not about producing the most effective and versatile employees for the work markets (as OECD and other such economic stakeholders might suggest). Instead, the traditional Humboldtian view emphasizes that the role of the university is to increase the capacity for self-determination of the individual. Critical thinking plays a key role in this equation as it can unlock the state of rational autonomy for the individual.  

This does not affect the empirical research already done, but I think the text could be made stronger by adding more references to the literature on critical thinking. Here are some suggestions (for your consideration).

Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003) Critical thinking. In Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R. & Standish, P. (Eds.) The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 181–193). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996294.ch11

Halpern D. F. (2014). Thought and knowledge: An introduction to critical thinking (5th ed.). New York: Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003025412

Hyytinen, H. (2015). Looking beyond the obvious: Theoretical, empirical and methodological insights into critical thinking. University of Helsinki, Institute of Behavioural Sciences, Studies in Educational Sciences 260

Hitchcock D (2018). Critical thinking. In E. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. Routledge.

Author Response

Comment 1:  In my feedback, I will focus solely on the theoretical framework, as this is my own area of strength as a philosopher of education. Namely, I have some concerns about how critical thinking (and the closely related epistemological aims of education, such as reflective thinking, information literacy, scientific thinking, analytical thinking, logical thinking etc.) are introduced in the text. This seems to me as one-dimensional and focused on only thinking skills (analyzing claims, forming beliefs, drawing logical conclusions from a set of premises etc.). However, philosophers of education who have written on this topic ever since John Dewey have stressed that critical thinking cannot be a neutral skill to be applied in any way as the individual wishes (for example, as a tool to create compelling political propaganda). Instead, our theoretical account of critical thinking must also include several virtues of thinking, such as the pursuit of truth and intellectual humility. As educators, our aim is to instill these virtues in our students. Many theorists have even suggested that these virtues of thinking are even more important in our account of critical thinking than the epistemological and logical skills. This also affects how we see the role of higher education. It is not about producing the most effective and versatile employees for the work markets (as OECD and other such economic stakeholders might suggest). Instead, the traditional Humboldtian view emphasizes that the role of the university is to increase the capacity for self-determination of the individual. Critical thinking plays a key role in this equation as it can unlock the state of rational autonomy for the individual.  This does not affect the empirical research already done, but I think the text could be made stronger by adding more references to the literature on critical thinking. Here are some suggestions (for your consideration).

Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003) Critical thinking. In Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R. & Standish, P. (Eds.) The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 181–193). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996294.ch11

Hitchcock D (2018). Critical thinking. In E. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. Routledge

 

Answer to comment 1

Thank you very much, dear reviewer, for your comments. We have added a couple of paragraphs to address your question, which is quite valid and important to address. 

It is important to point out that critical thinking should not be considered only as a set of epistemological skills, such as analyzing assertions, forming beliefs or reaching logical conclusions based on premises. From the perspective of educational philosophers such as John Dewey, critical thinking is intrinsically linked to intellectual virtues that go beyond its technical dimension. Virtues such as truth-seeking, intellectual humility, and commitment to ethical reasoning are essential to ensure that critical thinking is not used as a neutral and potentially dangerous tool, for example, to justify political propaganda. These virtues underscore the role of critical thinking in the formation of autonomous and responsible individuals capable of exercising judgment for the common good (Bailin & Siegel 2003; Lipman 2003).
Likewise, the development of critical thinking in higher education should not be limited to preparing students for the labor market, as stressed by international organizations such as the OECD. On the contrary, it should be aligned with a Humboldtian vision of education, which prioritizes the strengthening of the individual's rational autonomy. This approach considers the university as a space for promoting self-reflection and the capacity for self-determination. Thus, critical thinking becomes not only a cognitive tool, but also a means to achieve a state of rational autonomy, where individuals can make informed and ethically justified decisions in a complex and interconnected world (Siegel 1988; Hitchcock 2018).

With these paragraphs, we have added some of the references that suggest to us:

[52] Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003) Critical thinking. In Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R. & Standish, P. (Eds.) The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 181-193). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470996294.ch11
[53] Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[54] Siegel, H. (1988). Educating reason: Rationality, critical thinking, and education. Routledge
[55] Hitchcock D (2018). Critical thinking. In E. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I very much enjoyed reading this manuscript! This is well conceptualized, conducted, and written scholarship. I found the authors' attention and care to ensure transparency in the paper outstanding. Likewise, steps taken to ensure the validity of the data and measurements, i.e., pilot testing, were also outstanding. The study undertakes a complex exploration of multifaceted thinking across ten universities in eight countries. The theoretical grounding is well conceptualized and aligns well with the study's hypothesis. Only a handful of very minor edits are suggested:

Ø  Line 123 – perhaps reword the sentence from “…to better their career development” to “… to address their career development better.”

Ø  Line 174 – there are two different spellings for enrollment/enrolment – either is fine, but please be consistent.

 

Ø  Section 3.2 – there is a formatting shift that appears to be justified and spaced differently than the rest of the manuscript.

Author Response

Comment 1:

I very much enjoyed reading this manuscript! This is well conceptualized, conducted, and written scholarship. I found the authors' attention and care to ensure transparency in the paper outstanding. Likewise, steps taken to ensure the validity of the data and measurements, i.e., pilot testing, were also outstanding. The study undertakes a complex exploration of multifaceted thinking across ten universities in eight countries. The theoretical grounding is well conceptualized and aligns well with the study's hypothesis. Only a handful of very minor edits are suggested:

Ø  Line 123 – perhaps reword the sentence from “…to better their career development” to “… to address their career development better.”

Ø  Line 174 – there are two different spellings for enrollment/enrolment – either is fine, but please be consistent.

Ø  Section 3.2 – there is a formatting shift that appears to be justified and spaced differently than the rest of the manuscript.

Answer to comment 1

We have modified the editing errors you pointed out, as well as the incorrect formatting in section 3.2. Thank you very much for your clarifications.